Eternal Same-Gender Procreation

[rockpond]

You are heading off on a derailing tangent and I decline to follow.  The subject at hand is the birth/creation of spirit children.

 

The arguments are basically either Brigham was right and spirit children are procreated heterosexually as all other life has been, or there is some other option in creation in which case that would allow homosexual creation of spirit children.

 

The physical creation of Adam is not the subject.  The creation of billions of spirit children by either procreation or some other method (allowing homosexuals to participate) is the topic posed by the OP.

 

Yeah, I'm going to go with the only prophetic teaching on this subject - Brigham Young's.  Until further light that contradicts no prior revelation is revealed.

 

I think you should stick with what you feel to be prophetic teaching on the subject.  And, as I've followed you here, I admire how well you do follow your understanding of prophetic teaching.  I'm consistently fascinated by your statements as a result of the integrity you show in that respect.

 

I'm just pointing out that, for me, BY's teachings are not as clear as they are for you.  And I was sincere in my question of how intelligences factor into the creation of spirit children.  I think there is so much that we just haven't been given yet.

[CV75]

And in case we feel like starting debate over the definition of "beget/begat" it's a pretty safe bet that Brigham meant it in the the Biblical sense - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth".

 

From the german - begatten - "“to mate, copulate"

In any case, the marriage covenant is about “an increase,” “a fulness” and “a continuation of the seeds.” Some would make this “fulness” include or entail the fulfillment of sexual desire (whatever form that may take), but I think it makes far more sense that is has to do with the outcome of “replenishing.”

Sexual desire is neither a prerequisite nor a proper substitute for procreation, nor is it the same as procreation. The marriage covenant authorizes eternal increase in all its forms, and to reduce it to an accommodation for sexual preference is badly missing the point.

[Buzzard]

It hasn't happened yet in this thread, but inevitably the comparison to other doctrinal "changes" like polygamy and the priesthood being extended to all worthy males will come up.  With the blacks and the priesthood, multiple prophets had stated that the ban was temporary, it was just a matter of when. Polygamy is also clearly presented in the BOM as a temporary condition.  

But multiple apostles have, in referring directly to same sex sealings, used the term "never".  Often they were speaking on our need to be Christlike to those with same sex attraction, so the subject is immistakable. Even when referring to ordaining women, I detect a little wiggle room, saying it would only happen if the Lord commands it.  But as to sexually active gays, even those legally married, I detect a very firm stance that marriage between a man and woman (or women,  in some cases) is the only partnership that will exist in the eternities.  

It's just not going to happen. I know Daniel2 and Rockpond and others are fishing for a way to make it happen, but it's not going to. 

[JLHPROF]

In any case, the marriage covenant is about “an increase,” “a fulness” and “a continuation of the seeds.” Some would make this “fulness” include or entail the fulfillment of sexual desire (whatever form that may take), but I think it makes far more sense that is has to do with the outcome of “replenishing.”

Sexual desire is neither a prerequisite nor a proper substitute for procreation, nor is it the same as procreation. The marriage covenant authorizes eternal increase in all its forms, and to reduce it to an accommodation for sexual preference is badly missing the point.

 

Who brought up sexual desire?  We are talking mechanics here.

[KevinG]

I don't discount the possibility that someone in a committed homosexual relationship could keep that relationship in the eternities.  However- there are blessings that are predicated on obedience to the laws that God has given us, and whatever blessings are attached to the new and everlasting covenant will be lost if we disobey God's laws.  I could see the punishment for rejecting polygamy in Brigham's time (when at least acceptance of the principle was required) being similar to the punishment for rejecting the Proclamation on the Family today.

 

"I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc." The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (Vol 11, D 41)

 

 

The key in obedience leading to blessings for me is, "am I actively discarding selfish desires in order to be obedient to God, or am I actively petitioning God so I can keep my selfish desires?"

Edited February 24, 2015 by KevinG

[teddyaware]

I was uncomfortable with some of the comments on the first two pages of this thread.  Daniel asked a question or two as he was trying to imagine a desired reality in the future.  It is evident that for the vast majority of LDS the concept proposed was in error on many levels; however, it was the manner of the responses that made me uncomfortable.

 

We have many brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction.  It matters how we respond to honest questions or sincere questioning of what the future may hold.  We do not have all the answers; we should feel comfortable acknowledging that fact.  At the same time, we can state what we believe has been revealed in a manner that does not condemn the individual.  

 

Those that endure SSA have just as strong a need for companionship as everyone else.  The challenge is that to be a faithful disciple of Christ requires they never act upon their sexual drive.  This should be understood to be a daunting challenge and it is easy to understand how some through in the towel and succumb to our carnal nature.  

 

Further, our brothers and sisters often struggle to understand how or why they are the way they are.  The majority express a strong commitment that they came this way; they are the way God made them.  I personally believe this, but I also believe that the emphasis must remain on holiness and seeking to be like Christ.  Their burden is a heavy one and we should strive to be compassionate in our responses.

 

Daniel is not one to insult others purposely.  I believe his intentions are sincere and he struggles to gain an understanding that meets his desires just as we all do.  The issue is coming to a full denial of self in order to follow Christ.  This demand sacrifice of each and every disciple of Christ.  The challenge is to submit fully and willingly so that release our burdens to him whose shoulders are strong and he willingly takes the weight from us and walks beside us.  

 

We need to be a source of peace in the world without any need to purposely hurt others.  I am not supporting a position that leads to hiding truths, but rather one that supports focusing on the what is our goal - to be like Christ in order to realize the oneness with our Father that we recognize as exaltation.  

 

As one of the first responders on this thread, I wasn't trying to be clever nor disrespectful when I said the very first impression that entered my mind after reading the op was that serious attempts to purse a method of same sex human procreation sounded like the kind of thing that would bring forth swift retribution from heaven. Call me a knuckle-dragging troglodyte if you wish, but that's what instantaneously crossed my mind without even a moment of reflection. The impression just seemed to spring forth viscerally from some place deep within my soul. After some reflection, and in light of the Family Proclamation's warning of the cataclysmic judgements of God that would be poured out upon the world if the principles set forth in proclamation were willfully violated, I can now more clearly understand why that very unpleasant impression so easily entered my mind. Sorry if my opinion offends or seems to lack compassion.

Edited February 24, 2015 by teddyaware

[TOmNossor]

Based mostly on the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, Mormonism currently teaches that gender is eternal and an important aspect of our individual identities, both now, as well as in the pre- and post- mortal realms. The Proclamation is rather vague as to what post-mortal gender roles will be.

It is obvious that current LDS leadership promote the idea that LDS doctrine will never change to embrace same-sex relationships. However, there is often much discussion among those of us that are younger, speculating on the possibility that that could change sometime in the future. The thinking seems to be that previous generations held similar beliefs about other doctrinal aspects that at the time, seemed unchangeable, but that revelation altered the church's stance in later years.

There definitely seems to be a generational divide among church members on the issue of the possibility that the church may, at some future date, under a different prophet and quorum of apostles, reveal that God may allow for eternal same-gender relationships.

I realize that there is an ongoing objection to this line of thinking by more traditional/conservative members who are emphatic that the current leadership cannot be wrong. Their criticism at those who are open to the idea of same-sex relationships usually centers around faithfulness in sustaining current church leaders, and accepting their sermons as unchangeable scripture. This idea is certainly worth ongoing exploration, but I'd like to focus this thread on a different aspect of the discussion.

Specifically, I'd like to focus on one facet of this discussion:

Those traditional, conservative Latter-day Saints frequently raise the objection that same-sex relationships would refute the entire purpose of the Plan of Salvation because, they claim, same-sex relationships could never be procreative. The thinking is that because the entire purpose of the Plan of Salvation is to experience a fulfillment of joy in having posterity, and because gays and lesbians cannot (and presumably will not ever be able to) procreate, that such couplings are contrary to God's design for divine family relationships.

As I have personally explored this aspect of this topic over the years, I see two solutions...

First: I think there's certainly the possibility that God could recognize and allow for eternal marital relationships that do not produce children. This school of thought suggests that in Heavenly Father's kingdom, there would be innumerable roles, jobs, functions, positions... (whatever you want to call them). Not all of God's children will receive exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom--in fact, two thirds of those that receive Celestial Glory will not be procreative... Given how little is revealed in LDS cannon about Celestial roles, it seems at least possible (if not yet entirely plausible for those more conservative Latter-day Saints) that Heavenly Father could allow for same-sex relationships to fulfill other, non-procreative roles in the celestial kingdom (i.e. care-giving roles such as child caring, child rearing, husbandry of celestial flora and fauna, celestial art, music, dance, or whatever other roles may exist in Celestial creation). Given that not all of God's children have the same gifts, desires, talents, and personalities, and that this life is a time to prove and test and grow and learn to become our best selves in preparation for a degree of divine glory, it makes sense that our identities won't be universally the same in the afterlife.

So... that's the first explanation that came to my mind, as I've mulled this over the last decade or so.

The second solution is really what I'd like to suggest as the topic of this thread: as our medical technology evolves, it's becoming clear that here on earth, parents sharing the same gender will soon be able to conceive children, and this will no longer be a barrier to their ability to procreate. This is a topic I've mentioned before, in the past, by pointing to scientific studies showing same-sex parenting in mice. I've suggested that science will soon be able to allow same-sex couples to procreate. Today, it appears we are certainly on the verge of that happening:

Of course, it's very evident that there will be many questions and discussions on the ethics of such medical assistance (or tampering, depending on one's view). Arguments will be made, such as, "Just because we can do something, it doesn't mean it's right to do so." And as a father myself, I think those are valid points to consider. I am not yet convinced or comfortable with designer children. I don't believe it's wise for mortals to play in that sandbox, given that actual children are at stake, and because we are mortal and have limited knowledge, we wouldn't--we couldn't--know the effect of such medical interference until producing a child which may or may not be negatively affected. So, IMO, the ethical questions/concerns are definitely valid. But even those ethical questions are not what I wish to discuss, in this thread.

Having said all of the above, with the acknowledgement and full awareness of all of the above-mentioned theological and ethical arguments against medically-assisted same-sex procreation, I'm finally arriving at the focus of my thread, which is simply this:

SINCE LDS scripture thus far has revealed virtually nothing about how spirit bodies are created, and

IF, here and now in our mortal state, we, as limited humans, are already capable of pro-creating life from the seeds of two same-sex parents, and

IF, from an eternal perspective, God is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, and

IF, from an eternal perspective, with God, all things are possible,

THEN it seems to me that the argument that "same-sex parents cannot and could not ever procreate" is no longer a valid reason for thinking that same-sex parents will never be a celestial reality, or at the very least, isn't as concrete as it once was.

Daniel,

Thank you for your well thought out post. I have attempted to articulate my reasons for being more opposed to SSM than I was a year or two ago.

I presently think (and I am quite certain I am not infalliable) that the challenges you face are unique to you as are the challenges I face. I will be the first to admit that I have failed mightily and repeatedly as I navigated some of my unique obstacles in life. I am also sure that there are areas in which I "call evil good." So the "solution" that I see to the dilemma is that there was only one perfect man born and He was not perfect because his life had no challenges ONLY that He ALWAYS resisted temptation. He is the ONLY one who knows the difficulty of ALWAYS choosing the right. Everyone else gives in to sin at some time or another and thus never feels the full weight of temptation. We should attempt to not sin and not "call evil good," but we will fail due to weakness and ignorance and both.

After saying that however, let me say that I do not wish to be one to say "never" will the CoJCoLDS change. I will follow the prophet. I do not have a desire to enter into a SSM and as such it is not something that creates temptation for me. As such it is of LESS importance to my personal salvation than the numerous stumbling blocks that trip me up each day. Our church history has two very large and prominent changes that I am sure resulted in some folks not following the prophet. If we disavow the efficacy of the atonement or ... I will have some problems, but SSM will not be in the same ball park. I will also say, that there is more teaching and theology integrated into opposite sex sealing/marriage than there was into the priesthood ban or polygamy, so I can understand and respect a version of "never going to change." But, currently I will not be chanting, "never going to change."

May God guide me and His prophets and indeed all of us to His truth and give me the strength to walk with Him.

Charity, TOm

[KevinG]

Call me a knuckle-dragging troglodyte if you wish

 

You may be a knuckle dragging troglodyte, but you are our knuckle dragging troglodyte.  

[teddyaware]

You may be a knuckle dragging troglodyte, but you are our knuckle dragging troglodyte.  

 

Gee thanks Kevin! Now I really feel like I'm part of "the gang." But there's no denying I set myself up for that one -- the rhetorical equivalent of a hanging curve ball...

[KevinG]

Gee thanks Kevin! Now I really feel like I'm part of "the gang." But there's no denying I set myself up for that one -- the rhetorical equivalent of a hanging curve ball...

 

My weakness is never passing up a good straight line, or hanging curve ball.  

[CV75]

Who brought up sexual desire?  We are talking mechanics here.

Apparently I did, but I’ve taken it to be a component of many of the arguments applying the covenant to same-sex relationships on the basis that love between consenting adults is expressed in many ways.

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t make sense that in some exalted realm long before the foundation of the eternal round of which we are now part, that two eternal Beings of the same gender found the need to create/procreate a new, second one (and where is the equality in that!)?

There never was just one gender, and so there never was a same-sex covenant.

[BlueDreams]

Ugh!....I had this half written out and then it all went away! So annoying. So I'm going to cut out some of my thoughts, so that I can go to work soon.

Based mostly on the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, Mormonism currently teaches that gender is eternal and an important aspect of our individual identities, both now, as well as in the pre- and post- mortal realms. The Proclamation is rather vague as to what post-mortal gender roles will be.

It is obvious that current LDS leadership promote the idea that LDS doctrine will never change to embrace same-sex relationships. However, there is often much discussion among those of us that are younger, speculating on the possibility that that could change sometime in the future. The thinking seems to be that previous generations held similar beliefs about other doctrinal aspects that at the time, seemed unchangeable, but that revelation altered the church's stance in later years.

There definitely seems to be a generational divide among church members on the issue of the possibility that the church may, at some future date, under a different prophet and quorum of apostles, reveal that God may allow for eternal same-gender relationships.

 

I had written more here, but I'll just say that as one who is young (20's count?), not super traditional, and definitely not conservative I disagree with this assessment of the younger generation. There is a gap, but it's not as you describe.

 

I have 2 main problems with what you've written. The first is in your ifs statements....specifically the last two.

 

IF, from an eternal perspective, God is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, and

IF, from an eternal perspective, with God, all things are possible,

THEN it seems to me that the argument that "same-sex parents cannot and could not ever procreate" is no longer a valid reason for thinking that same-sex parents will never be a celestial reality, or at the very least, isn't as concrete as it once was.

 

 

 

The problem is simple.....with God, not all things are possible. Anything that goes against who He Is, is not possible for him. In fact, if he were to alter his ways it states that "God would cease to be God" several times in the BoM (with topics about the balance between justice and mercy, miracles, etc). If it goes against God's purpose and nature, it's not possible for Him to do so without who He is irreparably changing. Even the NT scriptures that state "with God, all things are possible" (specifically talking about rich guys getting into heaven), the scripture is worded significantly different in the JST stating in one - "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible, but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible." So no, not all things are possible, rather all of God's purposes and all that He is are possible to become ours, if we submit to Him. Big difference. 

 

The question then, is same sex union a feasible alternative in bring forth the Lord's purpose of generations without end and all that? Is it in align with God's nature? Which leads me to my second problem -

 

The second solution is really what I'd like to suggest as the topic of this thread: as our medical technology evolves, it's becoming clear that here on earth, parents sharing the same gender will soon be able to conceive children, and this will no longer be a barrier to their ability to procreate. This is a topic I've mentioned before, in the past, by pointing to scientific studies showing same-sex parenting in mice. I've suggested that science will soon be able to allow same-sex couples to procreate. Today, it appears we are certainly on the verge of that happening:


Of course, it's very evident that there will be many questions and discussions on the ethics of such medical assistance (or tampering, depending on one's view). Arguments will be made, such as, "Just because we can do something, it doesn't mean it's right to do so." And as a father myself, I think those are valid points to consider. I am not yet convinced or comfortable with designer children. I don't believe it's wise for mortals to play in that sandbox, given that actual children are at stake, and because we are mortal and have limited knowledge, we wouldn't--we couldn't--know the effect of such medical interference until producing a child which may or may not be negatively affected. So, IMO, the ethical questions/concerns are definitely valid. But even those ethical questions are not what I wish to discuss, in this thread.

 

This is, indeed a limited link, fraught with moral questions that you mentioned. But there's another limitation that is pertinent to the questions above. LDS are, doctrinally speaking, gender essentialists. By that, I mean the view is that Male and Female natures are viewed as essential to the PoS and Zion. Having these genders in union, scripturally are described as "in the image of God" (Creation accounts) as well as the purpose to all creation (DC 49:16-17). Ergo for LDS, another name for God is Heavenly Parents...and the ultimate image of God is Mother and Father in perfect union/harmony. That's no small thing to work around....it's fundamental, because it deals specifically with the characteristics of what makes Deity....something that is supposed to be unchanging and that, if it did change, "God would cease to be God." The question then is, are same-sex partnerships in fundamental gender balance....does it allow for the eternal necessity of both? Not simply, does this negate or make opposite-sex partners less important, but rather can and eternal balance be reached that allows for all manifestations of creation. 

 

Even on the limited spectrum, there's an immediate problem that shows a perpetual imbalance. Even if they're able to get out all the potential problems and the babies that are created are healthy and function, there's a problem of gender balance. For male partners who would opt for this, there is still no method for either for them to carry the child to full-term. They need a woman to do it (ie. surrogacy). So in this, women have only one fundamental role --> to be a carrier of a kid. Surrogacy, currently, has had it's issues. From the fact that essentially is selling one's kids, to contract problems, to international surrogacy abuses, to women basically being glorified baby-making machines that ignore biological and fundamental mothering instincts. It's also led to adorable stories (such as the grandmother carrying a child for her daughter). But it still leads to the problem that the only essential role for the women in this, is to be a glorified oven for someone else's bread (which is probably one of the reasons the church cautions against surrogacy). That isn't a gender balance in the least. For women (on this part I'm taking a wild guess) you have the problem of no y chromosomes in their DNA. So (again, basing this on my scant knowledge of biology) the only children that would be produced in this manner would end up being female. That's definitely not a gender balance.

 

I don't believe that our way of creating physical bodies for children is necessarily the way that'll carry out for eternity. But I do believe that creation entails having a profound gender harmony, where the essential builders must be both male and female in union. And I don't see that feasibly working in the way that you've described. I don't think that that's how God desires it, because the only thing that's come close to cheating that biological system....is still being perfected in a lab somewhere. That leaves out all of human history and a strong insistence that God does not change and that the image of God is Male and Female and with the pertinent LDS belief that Male and Female are united through sealings in order to inherit that fundamental nature for our Deity. It's going to take more than a fiddling with gametes to really bring into questions whether this is on the list of things Possible with the Lord. 

 

I recognize that there are some major holes in it (like what does H. Mother do anyways?). But the trajectory in LDS beliefs simply doesn't seem to be pointing the direction that you've suggested here. 

 

With luv,

BD       

[rockpond]

But the trajectory in LDS beliefs simply doesn't seem to be pointing the direction that you've suggested here.

I agree with this statement. I think that we're seeing an effort by leaders to re-entrench the importance of gender roles as related questions are being asked. I just re-read the December 1969 First Presidency statement and I see a lot of parallels to what is happening today. And that statement was less than 9 years before OD2 and the change to that policy. Edited February 25, 2015 by rockpond

[readstoomuch]

Can I just say that I am so tired of hearing, seeing and talking about SSM and LGBT issues on MormonDialogue.  At least this is one that started that way from the beginning instead of hijacking another thread.  Daniel2 has incredible staying power on those issues and Mormonism.  That much energy has to be acknowledged at the very least, even if it is tiresome to me.   

 

I apologize for this public opinion announcement.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[Storm Rider]

Can I just say that I am so tired of hearing, seeing and talking about SSM and LGBT issues on MormonDialogue.  At least this is one that started that way from the beginning instead of hijacking another thread.  Daniel2 has incredible staying power on those issues and Mormonism.  That much energy has to be acknowledged at the very least, even if it is tiresome to me.   

 

I apologize for this public opinion announcement.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

These one opinion is something that I could give a 2 Million points to if it was possible. A thread can be about any topic and be highjacked into SSM or LGBT issues in general.  Though I fully acknowledge it as an important topic, a one note band gets boring very, very, very quickly. 

[Daniel2]

Howdy, folks...

 

I appreciate everyone who’s commented in the thread thus far.  The responses are numerous, and time constraints in my regular life don’t allow enough time for me to respond to every post all at once…but I will be doing my best to answer, as I have time.  I appreciate those who have posted their thoughts, especially those that have sought to do so in as considerate a manner as possible.  I think such efforts reflect the best of each of us, as well as the advice of LDS leadership to engage in the dialogue surrounding this issue in a mutually respectful fashion.

 

I understand those of you who have reactions ranging somewhere on the spectrum between concern, distrust, suspicion, revulsion, or even anger at what may feel like someone seeking “to call that which is evil, good.”  I also appreciate that many are wary of “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and continually on the lookout for modern-day Korihors.  As someone whose entire life, since childhood, was spent deeply immersed in LDS culture and belief, I understand and anticipate that response—it’s one that characterized my own attitudes and responses to anything gay.  For the first 30 years of my life, I avoided confronting my sexual orientation because I feared finding answers that contradicted what I had always been taught and fiercely sought to continue to believe.

 

One final issue in this post, before I begin to tackle individual facets in subsequent posts:

 

You may be surprised that I can entirely relate to those of you who are weary of seeing so much discussion on LGBT issues and SSM here on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion. 

 

First: although I understand others may derail existing threads, it’s always been my intent to avoid hijacking other threads into LGBT/SSM topics.  I really try to contain gay and lesbian topics to specific threads designated for such. 

 

Second: it may come as surprise that I can very much relate to being tired of having to engage in discussions on this topic.  Honestly, I’d much prefer we all move beyond it and live in a world where we simply live and let live, despite our differences.  However, I am a gay man that lives in the heart of Mormonism.  My family are Mormon.  My neighbors are Mormon.  Most of the politicians where my children live are LDS, as are the judges and commissioners which hold decision-making authority over legal affairs that govern my own nuclear family.  Given that, and being that Utah is the epicenter of Mormonism, Mormonism is a force that influences my life and my choices on a daily, if not hourly, basis.  And Mormonism has strong views on civil policies directly relating to both gender roles and sexual orientation that directly and in very real world ways affect my life, my marriage, my family, my taxes, my custodial parent-time, and anti-discrimination laws that can or could affect my employment, housing, and access to public services.  Leaving Utah for another more LGBT-tolerant locale may seem like a plausible solution—but as I share custody of my children in Utah county, leaving the state would mean leaving my children behind, which I cannot do. 

 

So, here I stay.  And since I stay here, I have little choice but to remain engaged in a discussion which I view to be as worthy as that Title of Liberty that Captain Moroni erected… to defend my family, my spouse, my children, my liberty, and my faith.  My desires are as sincere as those of you who feel called to defend your Faith—and even though we may believe others are sincerely wrong, it’s my hope that there can be a mutual appreciation that at least, there is no mal-intent on either side.  We are people of divergent opinions and beliefs trying to navigate a mutually-respectful shared existence… for however wearying that is, I try to remind myself that because I appreciate and love my children, and I also appreciate and love my Mormon friends and neighbors, it’s a struggle worth having.

 

For what it’s worth, several comments here have already affected some of my thoughts on this subject… but more on that in later posts.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree with this statement. I think that we're seeing an effort by leaders to re-entrench the importance of gender roles as related questions are being asked. I just re-read the December 1969 First Presidency statement and I see a lot of parallels to what is happening today. And that statement was less than 9 years before OD2 and the change to that policy.

I know it is your pet horse to liken the priesthood ban to ssm but they are not the same at all. You really aught to give it up. Pahoran dealt you with you quit aptly on the other thread. I suspect that you will carry on and ignore the evidence with the wave of your hand like you have done on countless threads.

 

I will be here, as usual, to stand against your opinion that goes against church doctrine. It is my duty (in general not specific) to do so.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[BlueDreams]

I agree with this statement. I think that we're seeing an effort by leaders to re-entrench the importance of gender roles as related questions are being asked. I just re-read the December 1969 First Presidency statement and I see a lot of parallels to what is happening today. And that statement was less than 9 years before OD2 and the change to that policy.

 

I just read the 1969 statement (I can't remember if I read it before....I've read a number of things on this so it blurs). Where you see parallels, I still see some major discrepancies and holes that make the points that parallel more likely to veer off into another direction for what is done in the future.  

 

Can I just say that I am so tired of hearing, seeing and talking about SSM and LGBT issues on MormonDialogue.  At least this is one that started that way from the beginning instead of hijacking another thread.  Daniel2 has incredible staying power on those issues and Mormonism.  That much energy has to be acknowledged at the very least, even if it is tiresome to me.   

 

I agree, though for a slightly different reason, probably. I actually really enjoy learning about this topic outside of a debate board. And I especially like studying about points  of convergence in LGBT and LDS lives. I like views that aren't heard of or broadcasted on the news, but fits more of the "gray zone," per se in a topic that's often painted black and white. My reason for not liking it here is that what comes out is more of the dichotomy of this than anything else. And because of that, the issue circles and at times can be pretty terrible on the various arguments as it just keeps going into infinity.....insomuch that I may not agree with Rockponds ideas or CAboys perspective or Daniels take, but I also strongly disagree with many of the opinions on the other side of the arguments. So I prefer to step out and have more meaningful dialogues in my day-to-day than here where it's heavily polarized.     

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 25, 2015 by BlueDreams

[rockpond]

I will be here, as usual, to stand against your opinion...

 

Good.

[rockpond]

Can I just say that I am so tired of hearing, seeing and talking about SSM and LGBT issues on MormonDialogue.  At least this is one that started that way from the beginning instead of hijacking another thread.  Daniel2 has incredible staying power on those issues and Mormonism.  That much energy has to be acknowledged at the very least, even if it is tiresome to me.   

 

I apologize for this public opinion announcement.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

I agree.  And I try not to hijack other threads.  I hate seeing every discussion turn into a gay marriage debate.

 

But I do think that the abundance of discussion on this topic should tell us something.

[JLHPROF]

But I do think that the abundance of discussion on this topic should tell us something.

 

Oh, it does.  It really does.

[CV75]

I don't believe that our way of creating physical bodies for children is necessarily the way that'll carry out for eternity. But I do believe that creation entails having a profound gender harmony, where the essential builders must be both male and female in union.

I see this is a fundamental expression of the law of opposition and supports the connection between the genders, the covenant, the generation of life (by an means and in any form), and existence itself:

 

“And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God [covenant]… For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things [gender]. If not so, …if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death [generation of life]… Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. …And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away [existence].” (2 Nephi 2: 10-13).

 

There would be no opposition in a same-sex/gender construct, and therefore no existence.

[carbon dioxide]

Since we might entertain the absurdity of eternal same gender procreation, lets not just limit ourselves to homosexuality.  Perhaps creation occurs by inter species.  Even more probable is that unmarried people can reproduce "asexually" by dividing like bacteria.  So there can be billions of "clones" of that resurrected being.  There is an orientation that exists among people.  That is the "nonsexuals"  That is those that are not interested in either gender.  Should they be denied eternal increase because that is who they are?

Edited February 25, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The truth is new revelation cannot contradict previous revelation.  The idea that "virtually anything can change" makes a mockery of the gospel.  If God has already spoken, we should not ask again, because God does not change, neither does he vary what he has said.

This makes no sense. You're saying that we accept revelation as long as it doesn't reveal anything new.

 

If the prophet will only reveal what we already know then he's not much use.

[Daniel2]

Topic of my first reaction post: Some of you have implied that gay relationships are merely “eroticized” or “fetishized” imitations of straight relationships.

The ramifications of characterizing gay relationships as such clearly minimizes (at best) or denies (at worst) any value or merit that exists beyond the sexual aspects of same-sex relationships.

So let me state the obvious:

Sex certainly can be, and often is, one important aspect within any healthy marriage, and offers several benefits.

Perhaps the most obvious biological benefit of sex for heterosexual couples is that it may result in bearing children. Procreation is the first and most important step in the process of how we, as a species, survive. As an evolutionary adaptation, sexual reproduction is certainly central to the biological perpetuation of our species. It offers several evolutionary advantages, including biological diversity among our offspring since it combines the DNA from two unrelated parents. There are many other evolutionary advantages, including a lot that are far beyond my knowledge.

From a theological perspective, given LDS doctrines regarding the need for sexual reproduction to provide corporeal tabernacles for the spirits of God’s pre-existent spirit children, it’s also understandable why opposite-sex marriage—as a vehicle for procreation—is identified as being central to God’s plan.

Procreation is not the only benefit of sex, however, and the vast majority of sex—even within marriage--probably doesn’t directly result in procreation. Indeed, “sex” is not limited only to “intercourse,” and married couples often employ a variety of sexual behaviors and both natural and non-natural restrictions which would never result in or directly prevent the union of a sperm and egg.

There was a time when such non-procreative sexual behaviors, even between married couples, was viewed by religion to be of little value, and even expressly prohibited by religion… Even today, some religions prohibit contraception, for example.

Mormonism’s approach has altered over time, moving towards recognition that non-procreative sex serves other important functions. Other benefits include strengthening marital bonds, relieving stress, promoting overall wellbeing, etc.

Given that the majority of sexual intimacy between married heterosexuals does not result in pregnancy, and the recognition that it offers other personal and familial benefits, I believe it’s mischaracterizing gay and lesbian relationships to suggest or imply they are merely “eroticization” of something deeper or more real.

As a gay man, I can say that the genuine love—on all it’s levels—that my husband and I share is far deeper, more profound, more real, more intimate, more selfless, more giving, more natural, and more uplifting than any that I experienced with my former wife. In so saying, it is not my intent to tarnish the virtues of heterosexuality or my ex-wife. It is not a denial of the necessity of heterosexuality and the evolutionary realities and benefits of sexual reproduction, and heterosexuality’s centrality in the need for the continuation of human life on earth, and i am eternally grateful to my own parents for having me.

It is simply an admission that for me, heterosexuality was as ‘wrong’ and ‘un-natural’ as homosexuality would be to a straight man. In fact, the fact that my wife and I begat three amazing children was definitely the eroticization of my religious beliefs, rather than a true expression of my inner self and my own innate capacity to love and be loved.

More posts to follow, as time allows... including how some of the comments have affected what I proposed in the opening post.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Daniel2